I was asked to comment on this article from One Peter Five.
I think this is an example of people so ingrained in what they believe to be correct that they make weak arguments thinking they are rock solid.
They say communion on the hand is in stark contrast to scripture except there is no mention of communion reception. What they give is: if they touched the ark they died. If we are going to be consistent with typology Mary is the ark of the new covenant and no one died when she was touched. The manna is the old testament type of the Eucharist and it was holy enough to be put within the ark and yet the people not the priests picked it up off the ground. How is this supposed to prove communion on the tongue? Actually if you look at scripture mk 14:22 same in Mt 26:26 "take and eat” g2983 lambano is used and is an active verb literally to get a hold of where g1209 is a passive verb more fitting to receive but was not used.
So in their patristic section they blatantly lied about the Council of Constantinople.The council said nothing about how to receive and the canons of Constantinople Trullo 10 years after said you were cut off if you tried to receive communion in any way other than in the hand. They mention a number of councils that I would love to read what they said but if they are going to blatantly lie about the one council I can read, I can just assume until otherwise shown wrong that these other council's claims are made up. An article on the Catholic Encyclopedia (Communion under both kinds) says these two councils excommunicated people if they tried to receive communion outside of a church which as you will see later in Basil's letter was only during persecution. There is a quote going around that Trent said communion on the tongue is an apostolic tradition. This quote is completely made up also but I see they didn’t use that. They give the quote from Leo “that which is taken by mouth is believed by faith” It may be but if you look at a pill bottle it says take one pill by mouth. That doesn’t imply someone else is putting it there. The mention of pope Sixtus saying people don’t touch the sacred vessels could just be the continuation of the temple tradition that only the priests touched the vessels. Early on people observed both the Sabbath and the Lord’s day and so old habits die hard. The biggest reason I don't see Sixtus' quote as communion on tongue is because Eusebius wrote in his Church History book 7 that people reach out their hands to receive the body of the Lord. Eusebius was an adviser to Constantine so he was in and around Rome supposedly where communion on the tongue should have been going on.
Thomas Aquinas' quote is late enough that that was the current practice. It is not a mention of what occurred in the past.
St Cyril's quote is brought into question. St John Damascene says exactly the same thing 300 years later so it is more likely that the quote is legitimate.
The quote from Basil I have shown that he is making a case that it is okay to take the Eucharist home to receive when in persecution and he gives the argument to make his readers feel better about it that "even in the church you take complete power over it and raise it to your lips."
The argument that the angels gave the Fatima children on the tongue doesn’t have a lot of strength considering on the tongue is all they knew and the angels aren’t going to go against church law to give it to them another way. It could be just as easily be canceled out by Jesus speaking to St Faustina while in the host form that he desired to rest in her hands.
When it comes to which form is apostolic there is more evidence for communion in the hand as apostolic than there is for the Assumption and they don’t doubt that. There is an argument I have used in apologetics to show an apostolic doctrine from a heresy. I take the Eucharist for example you find it being taught everywhere from Irenaus in France to Cyprian in Africa to Cyril in Jerusalem. Heresy starts out with a person in one place and it spreads some but you don’t find it being taught everywhere. This is an analogy and I am not saying any way of receiving communion is a heresy I am using this analogy to show this is how communion on the tongue shows up. It is not taught everywhere like in the hand is (from England to Constantinople) and it starts out in one place (only in Rome). It took more than 400 years after pope Gregory mentions it in the 500s for it become more mainstream.
What the Church Fathers actually believed about how to receive communion.
Other articles
https://practicalapologetics.blogspot.com/2019/08/communion-on-tongue-is-apostolic.html
https://practicalapologetics.blogspot.com/2014/08/response-to-rethinking-communion-in-hand.html
No comments:
Post a Comment